ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. The Appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicless Act (in short "Act") for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Harda in Motor Vehicles Claim Case No. 12/2003 vide award dated 21/01/2003, whereby his claim filed with respect of death of his younger brother namely Banshi aged 30 years in the alleged vehicular accident, has been awarded only for the sum of Rs. 1,44,000/ - alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. The findings of the tribunal holding the brother of the Appellant died in the alleged road accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 2 and such vehicle being registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 was insured with Respondent No. 1 based on appreciation of the evidence are not under challenge in this appeal. So on such questions this appeal is not required any consideration at this stage. 3. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant only for the enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal, hence in view of aforesaid undisputed findings of the tribunal; mentioning the entire facts of the case relating to the accident in this order are not necessary. Therefore, only by mentioning the necessary facts in this order, the appeal is being decided. 4. The tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased Rs. 1,500/ - per month, as he was working as cleaner of some vehicle, carried out the assessment of the compensation. According to that, holding the annual income of the deceased Rs. 18,000/ - out of which deducted 1/3rd on account of the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on him had he been alive and in such premises Rs. 12,000/ - per year dependency of the Appellant is held. Thereafter, by applying the multiplier of 12, the total claim of the Appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,44,000/ - alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum as stated above. 5. Shri A.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for Appellant after taking me through the pleadings, evidence and the documents said that in view of the evidence adduced on his behalf there was sufficient circumstance to draw the inference that the deceased was earning nearly about Rs. 1,44,000/ - alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum as stated above. 5. Shri A.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for Appellant after taking me through the pleadings, evidence and the documents said that in view of the evidence adduced on his behalf there was sufficient circumstance to draw the inference that the deceased was earning nearly about Rs. 60/ - per day and, in such premises, the incomes comes to Rs. 1,800/ - per month. On taking into consideration such earning of the deceased and on adopting the same principle of deduction, as adopted by the tribunal, the annual dependency of the Appellants on the deceased comes on higher side. He also said that the multiplier of 12 which has been adopted by the tribunal is apparently on lower side. In any case, either in view of the schedule of Section 163-A of the Act or in view of the principle laid down in the matter of Sarla Devi, the multiplier of either 17 or 18 at the place of 12 should have been adopted by the tribunal and in such premises also the claim is awarded by the Tribunal at lower side and prayed to enhance the appropriate sum accordingly by allowing this appeal. 6. On the other hand Shri Pranay Gupta, learned Counsel, responding the aforesaid argument said that the sum awarded by the tribunal is just and proper, as the calculation of the same was carried out by the tribunal on proper appreciation of the available evidence. The same does not require any interference in this appeal. He also said that in the year 1999 a person who was working as a labourer or cleaner of the vehicle was not getting more than Rs. 50/ - per day. In such premises the tribunal has not committed any error in assessing the compensation @ Rs. 1,500/ - per month. He also said that the Appellant being elder brother of the deceased was not dependent on him and therefore, in any case he is not entitled to get any claim of such brother. If, in any case, this appeal is allowed even then, in the available circumstances, the multiplier of the higher side should not be adopted because the Appellant being the elder brother of the deceased and also the earning person is not entitled for the compensation on higher side, and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. If, in any case, this appeal is allowed even then, in the available circumstances, the multiplier of the higher side should not be adopted because the Appellant being the elder brother of the deceased and also the earning person is not entitled for the compensation on higher side, and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Having heard the counsel keeping in view their argument, I have carefully gone through the record of the tribunal and also perused the appeal memo along with impugned award. 8. True it is that the Appellant is an elder brother of the deceased but I have not found any evidence in the record showing that the Appellant was not the dependent on his younger brother. On the contrary in this regard un-rebutted statement of the Appellant is available on record. The same is showing that till some extent he was dependent on his deceased younger brother Banshi. So in view of such evidence it could not be held that the Appellant was not the dependent person on the deceased. The possibility could not be ruled out that some time the elder brother may be dependent on the younger person. In such premises the argument advanced by the arguing counsel contrary to the aforesaid evidence is hereby failed. 9. Keeping in view the available evidence and the circumstances, the income of the deceased could be safely assumed Rs. 60/ - per day. Accordingly his income comes to Rs. 1,800/ - per month and in such premises the yearly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,800 x 12 = 21,600. Out of this assessed income, keeping in view the principle laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , as the claimant is younger brother of the deceased and deceased was unmarried person, firstly I deem fit to deduct 1/2 from it out of the expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on him, had he been alive, on deducting the same, (21,600-10,800), the annual dependency of the Appellant comes to Rs. 10,800/ -. 10. In view of the principle laid down by Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) on adopting the multiplier of 17 relating to the age of the deceased i.e. 30 years, the total dependency comes to (10800 X 17) Rs. 1,83,600/. 10,800/ -. 10. In view of the principle laid down by Apex Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) on adopting the multiplier of 17 relating to the age of the deceased i.e. 30 years, the total dependency comes to (10800 X 17) Rs. 1,83,600/. The same is awarded. Besides this, the Appellant is also entitled some amount on the traditional head like funeral expenses, loss of expectancies and loss of the estate. In such account, I deem fit to award Rs. 15,000/ - to the Appellant. Accordingly, the total claim of the Appellant is awarded for the sum of Rs. 1,98,600/ -. Out of this the Respondents are entitled to deduct the sum which has been awarded by the tribunal and paid by them. 11. In the aforesaid premises, by allowing this appeal in part, the sum of Rs. 1,44,000/ - awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from such amount to Rs. 1,98,600/ - besides this the Appellant shall also be entitled to get the interest on the aforesaid enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The liability to indemnify the enhanced sum is saddled against the Respondents No. l to 3 jointly and severally. The enhanced sum is to be paid by the Respondents within three months from today. In the available circumstances there shall be no order as to the costs. Till this extent, the impugned award is modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. Appeal partly allowed.